Re: String name and Character Name

From: Mark Davis (
Date: Mon Apr 18 2005 - 14:01:04 CST

  • Next message: John Hudson: "Re: String name and Character Name"


    It is pointless to keep asking for the names to be changed, deprecated, or
    replaced. Because of the Unicode stability policy, that simply will not
    happen, as should be clear to you from the many responses on this topic.

    The mechanism we have now is to add annotations, and we encourage people to
    submit them. There are also some ideas about having a repository of
    localized names, eg in CLDR, that may be worth exploring. But it is just a
    waste of time to keep asking for the names to be changed, deprecated, or


    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Peter Kirk" <>
    To: "Otto Stolz" <>
    Cc: <>
    Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 10:04
    Subject: Re: String name and Character Name

    > On 18/04/2005 13:30, Otto Stolz wrote:
    > > ...
    > > And you fail completely to see that the paragraph you twice have
    > > quoted maimedly is meant to divert the context in the proper
    > > direction (I'll quote again in the hope that you will read it
    > > this time):
    > > > so your suggestions would end in the places where users of the
    > > > Unicode standard would expect (and hence read) them, viz. in
    > > > the annotations for individual characters (TUS, chapter 16),
    > > > in the description of the individual scripts (TUS, chapters 7
    > > > through 15), or in the Unicode Character Database, as appropriate.
    > >
    > OK, I understand now that you wanted to divert the context. I consider
    > the direction that you want to divert it in to be inappropriate, but
    > that is another matter.
    > ...
    > > My point was, and still is: Send your substantiated suggestions
    > > for better descriptions of the various characters (in both the
    > > annotations in chapter 16, the description of the individual
    > > scripts (chapters 7 through 15), and the Unicode Character
    > > Database) to <>. TUS is the
    > > ultimate reference for all applications of Unicode, so all
    > > corrections must go there.
    > >
    > I agree that all corrections must go there. But they cannot go where
    > they really should go, which is into the official list of character
    > names. Now we know that characters cannot be deleted either, but if
    > there are serious errors in their definitions they can be deprecated and
    > replaced. On the same basis, the list of character names which cannot be
    > changed can however be deprecated, and clearly labelled as such within
    > TUS - and effectively replaced with a new list with a slightly different
    > label. And that is what should be done.
    > But there is still no point in requesting such corrections via
    >, because as we have been told,
    > character name changes suggested there are simply noted and ignored -
    > not treated as potential annotation suggestions, but ignored.
    > --
    > Peter Kirk
    > (personal)
    > (work)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 18 2005 - 14:03:11 CST